Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1008

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Reply and Sur-Reply Briefs re Adobe's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Based on Its License Defense by Adobe Systems Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mukherji, Proshanto)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446 LED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY AND SUR-REPLY BRIEFS
RE ADOBE SYSTEM INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT BASED ON ITS LICENSE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs Eolas Technologies, Inc. (“Eolas”) and The Regents of the University of
California and Defendant Adobe Systems Incorported (“Adobe”) jointly move for leave to file
short reply and sur-reply briefs regarding Adobe’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement Based on Its License Defense (“Adobe’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment”). On August 17, 2011, Adobe sought leave to file its Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and exceed the collective 60-page limit for summary judgment briefing. Dkt. No. 871.
The Court granted Adobe’s motion for leave. Dkt. No. 893. On September 28, 2011, Eolas filed
an unopposed motion for leave to file an opposition brief to Adobe’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and exceed the 60-page limit for responses to summary judgment motions.
Dkt. No. 991. The Court granted Eolas’s motion for leave as well. Dkt. No. 998.
Adobe and Plaintiffs hereby jointly request leave to file respectively a reply and a surreply brief with regard to Adobe’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Mindful of the
Court’s guidance in Dkt. No. 959, where it granted five extra pages for reply and sur-reply briefs
JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY AND SUR-REPLY BRIEFS - Page 1

relating to a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Go Daddy, Adobe and Plaintiffs
hereby request leave to exceed the respective page limits for replies and sur-replies to summary
judgment motions by five pages each.
Dated: October 7, 2011
/s/ Mike McKool
Mike McKool
E-mail: [e-mail]
Douglas Cawley
E-mail: [e-mail]
Holly Engelmann
E-mail: [e-mail]
J.R. Johnson
E-mail: [e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
Kevin L. Burgess
E-mail: [e-mail]
Josh W. Budwin
E-mail: [e-mail]
Gretchen K. Curran
E-mail: [e-mail]
Matthew B. Rappaport
E-mail: [e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
Robert M. Parker
E-mail: [e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt
E-mail: [e-mail]
Andrew T. Gorham
E-mail: [e-mail]
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Proshanto Mukherji
David J. Healey
E-mail: [e-mail]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1 Houston Center
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77010
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
OF COUNSEL:
Frank E. Scherkenbach
E-mail: [e-mail]
Proshanto Mukherji
Email: [e-mail]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02110-1878
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
Jason W. Wolff
E-mail: [e-mail]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendant
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

RE ADOBE SYSTEM INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NONINFRINGEMENT BASED ON ITS LICENSE DEFENSE - Page 2

[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Eolas Technologies Inc.
and The Regents of the
University Of California

RE ADOBE SYSTEM INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NONINFRINGEMENT BASED ON ITS LICENSE DEFENSE - Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been served on October 7, 2011 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
/s/ Proshanto Mukherji

11178990.doc

RE ADOBE SYSTEM INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NONINFRINGEMENT BASED ON ITS LICENSE DEFENSE - Page 4